[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> Why does the topic interest you?  Why would you 
> want answers from someone you describe as a moron?
> 
> [Arlo]
> I'd like answers because you continually deride 
> others with moronic glibs such as "oops". Since 
> you find it so easy to ridicule others, I wanted 
> to see what you could possibly offer instead. 

A non answer. Why do you want "to see what I could offer instead" since you 
already consider me a moron?

Why do you think "spontaneously arise" is any different than "oops."

> You've now answered this, "nothing". You allude 
> to a "Great Poof", but seem unwilling to talk 
> about it directly, possibly because you see how 
> absurd it is. If I am wrong here, then please, by 
> all means, actually answer my questions below and prove me wrong.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I do understand why you and 
> Ham are both incapable and unwilling to deal with 
> these questions. And I think that's now evident 
> for everyone to see (if it wasn't already). 
> Phaedrus encountered the same thing in Chicago 
> with the Chairman. "He shouldn't have cut it off, 
> Phædrus thinks to himself. Were he a real 
> Truth-seeker and not a propagandist for a 
> particular point of view he would not. He might learn something." (ZMM).
> 
> Your ongoing evasions point to which you are (and 
> Ham as well). But I am always happy to be proven 
> wrong. Here is now a sixth attempt at getting some answers.
> 
> [Arlo previously]
> Platt had, as is typical, derided the arguments 
> made by Krimel (about the origins of 
> consciousness) as "oops". Since Ham has already 
> indicated his beliefs to be "poof", but has been 
> wholly unable to articulate any answers to these 
> simple questions, I thought that Platt, who also 
> advocates a "Great Poof" theory should have a go 
> at them. After three posts of evasion (thread was 
> under What is SOM?), I thought I pull this into a 
> new thread to, to give Platt (or Ham) a more 
> noticeable forum to consider these questions.
> 
> I am also adding to this the question about the 
> evolution of consciousness. But first, the thread 
> Platt has (so far) been wholly unable to answer. 
> Hopefully his next post to this will be answers to these questions.
> 
> [Arlo had asked]
> First, I assume you'd agree that at some point in 
> the far, far distant past, some pre-pre-primate 
> of man lacked the sophistication in 
> consciousness/awareness that "man" possesses. If 
> you disagree here, let me know.
> 
> If we accept the above premise, then something 
> had to change, some event or something that 
> occurred, some change in something, that can 
> account for the appearance of something where it did not exist before
> No?
> 
> I've been vocal about my view on social 
> participation (an unintended consequence of 
> neurological evolution) being this "change". 
> Physiologists may point to simply the 
> neurobiological changes in themselves that 
> account for the appearance of human 
> consciousness. Both of these views you 
> characterize (slyly) as "oops". I've argued that 
> these are not "oops" but "aha's!", moments where 
> Quality latched onto the unexpected formations 
> that appeared due to genetic changes.
> 
> So I ask you, Platt, "what changed?" You disavow 
> both physiological and sociological theories. I 
> know that. So what do you offer instead? The only 
> thing I could glean from Ham's responses is a 
> sort of Divine Intervention, a great 
> "Abracadabra!" or "Poof!" where "on high" (Ham's 
> words) suddenly poofed consciousness into existence.
> 
> What do you offer instead of these? Although you 
> run from the word, the only thing you have ever 
> offered in the past is "Great Poof" a la Ham of 
> some "Qualigod". Now tell me, if not "oops" or "aha!" or "poof", then
> what?
> 
> [Arlo adds a new question to Platt]
> Is it your opinion, along with Ham, that 
> "consciousness" in man has evolved over historic 
> time, from "genus to species" (as Ham said), from 
> the earliest primates with this consciousness to 
> modern man? Or did "consciousness" appear 
> fully-formed and fully-evolved in those early primates?
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/